[Chris2048]

> being completely unable to articulate what "out" actually meant

Only those with an omniscient knowledge of the markets, or possibly a degree in economics, should vote?

If this is a mess to get out of, we shouldn't of gotten into it in the first place. The longer we'd of been in the EU, the harder to leave. Right now, it's painful to leave the EU - in the future it may be economy-ending - at least we've paused asset stripping before the assets run out. Saying "but there's no exit plan" is lame when that was on purpose - the same way websites make it easy to sign up, but make you you call them to close an account.

[pjc50]

asset stripping before the assets run out

What do you mean by this? Asset-stripping by selling public assets to well-connected parts of the private sector was Tory party policy for decades. The privatisation of the Land Registry was announced somewhere in the middle of the Brexit chaos when nobody would notice it.

[Chris2048]

I'm not too happy about that either, but that's a different issue - especially when it's the UK private sector.

I'm talking EU funded projects that migrated industries out of the UK to other parts of the EU. If you argue that there was just as much inward migration, I wouldn't have the information to dispute it, but then who does such clarity when the waters are so muddied - I want assurances, and the EU has not been forthcoming wrt transparency of this kind.

[pjc50]

EU funded projects that migrated industries out of the UK to other parts of the EU

[citation needed] - preferably with a check that it's not on the Euromyths list: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

[unfamiliar]

>Only those with an omniscient knowledge of the markets, or possibly a degree in economics, should vote?

Hyperbole aside, on an issue of this importance and magnitude, yes you should have an pretty solid idea about what you are voting on. If you can't be an expert yourself, you should at least figure out how to understand the main points an expert makes. If you can't do that you shouldn't vote, because you have no idea what you're talking about and no way to judge the consequences.

[Chris2048]

How does a non-expert recognise an expert with so many claiming expertise?

> If you can't do that you shouldn't vote, because you have no idea what you're talking about and no way to judge the consequences.

Why? Can you assume, then, that only those who do know the consequences will vote instead? Who does know the consequences - experts?

Also, who's to decide the importance or magnitude of an issue?

Doesn't this mean that the ability to muddy the waters is the power to restrict votes?

If we, the great unwashed don't understand the EU, or it's importance, how did our democratic country get into it in the first place? Surely the public understood it as little then? Or should we do what our politicians tell us to?

...

[barrkel]

You're arguing for direct democracy instead of representative democracy. What we have is an election of leaders, and then the leaders lead. So yes, we do what our politicians tell us to, and if we don't like it, we elect different politicians. That's how the system works. We elect people whose full time jobs, and their staffs, is to look at the consequences and make the decisions so we don't have to put in all the redundant work.

The EU referendum was an abnegation of leadership. It was never meant to be lost, because there was no concrete plan for what to do should it be lost. But the precise lack of planning meant that a No vote could mean anything to anybody; any little bugbear they had against the EU could be used as a reason to vote No, while the Yes case is entirely concrete. It was a choice between reality and everyone's individual fantasy. In that respect, it's hardly surprising that fantasy won.

[TheOtherHobbes]

We can't elect different politicians. The big lie of democracy is that you get a choice about policy.

You really don't. What if there are no leaders on the ballot who support the policies you want? What if there are no leaders on the ballot who support very popular policies?

What if polices are presented dishonestly, so voters don't get a fair choice on them?

What if policy is monopolised by party machines, so you actually have democracy twice removed - once from voters to parties, then again from parties to leaders?

I agree the referendum became a ridiculous exercise in "Are you more or less happy? Yes/No" - which is no way to make a decision of this sort, especially when a lot of people clearly aren't happy at all.

But that just emphasises how badly broken the British system is. It actively selects for political dysfunction. So of course dysfunction is what everyone gets.

The reality is you could pick a random selection of historically competent professionals from various fields, parachute them into power, and they'd do a far better job of picking policy and making sensible decisions than our professional pols do.

[coldtea]

>You're arguing for direct democracy instead of representative democracy. What we have is an election of leaders, and then the leaders lead.

No, we don't have an election of leaders to "lead the people".

We have an election of representatives of the will of the majority.

Even the word "prime minister" literaly means "first servant".

[Chris2048]

The EU - we don't like it, we voted out, that's how the system works.

> We elect people whose full time jobs, and their staffs, is to look at the consequences and make the decisions so we don't have to put in all the redundant work.

We don't have access to those people, or their conclusions are presented as/alongside FUD and misinformation.

If it's up for vote, it not something we ask the politicians to decide - which is not what the above post was suggesting: it suggested we should abstain from a voting.

> any little bugbear they had against the EU could be used as a reason to vote No, while the Yes case is entirely concrete

I point a gun at you and say "freeze". Staying still has a concrete justification, but who knows what will happen if you try to run.

[unfamiliar]

I'm not an expert in this by any means, but it is patently obvious with a little fact checking which of the "experts" on each side of the debate were legitimate. So to answer your first question, you recognise an expert by checking some of the things they come up with, and dismissing them as experts when they fail to hold water. This is a skill that many people don't have though, and I'm arguing that if you don't have this skill you probably shouldn't vote on issues you don't understand yourself. Now, are you self aware enough to know you don't have this skill? That's another question.

>Also, who's to decide the importance or magnitude of an issue?

This is a pointless hyperbolic question. The magnitude of the issue we are discussing is not really in question. When you get into the grey area of whether it is a "big issue" you also get into the grey area of whether it even matters.

>Doesn't this mean that the ability to muddy the waters is the power to restrict votes?

Again, if you're someone who is easily confused by the calibre of smoke-screens we've seen, you probably shouldn't be voting. Sophisticated deception does happen, but it didn't in this case. It was all pretty blatant.

> If we, the great unwashed don't understand the EU, or it's importance, how did our democratic country get into it in the first place?

You might as well ask the question of how did we become the UK in the first place. It is entirely irrelevant to what we decide to do next.

[JoeAltmaier]

Some issues of right and wrong don't need expertise in the consequences. E.g. "Burning hobos for fuel would be CO2 neutral. But it will have an effect on prices, and perhaps change stock fund values for pensioners. Hm, what should we do?"

[michaelt]

In my country, politicians regularly act in the interests of demographics with high voter turn-out, and against the interests of demographics that can't vote or have low voter turn-out. Given the choice of cutting benefits to retired people or cutting benefits to young people, the young people will get the cut much more often.

It'd be great for /me/ if only people with a masters degree or higher could vote, as the government wouldn't have to waste time addressing the demands of 95% of the population and could instead spend more resources on people like me.

I don't think it'd be good for 95% of the population though.

[Zenst]

AS for exit plan or plan B the Government should of planned for that and given that the plan A was stay in the EU and do nothing, then for the government to not do any planning is somewhat poor.

But the whole campaign from both sides skewed the reality in many ways and one of the unsetteling ones is that they have somewhat installed a percetion omngst people that if you voteed out your xenophobic and racist! Which is crazy and case of picking out the few cases in which so and projecting them upon a collective using another qualifier. Same thing happens by people seeing few religious terrorists and presuming all people of that religion upon those few worst cases.

The other issue in politics is you end up with picking from two choices, and either pick a hammer or a saw to handle all problems current and future. The latter being a real issue with the current democratic input from the people as you may pick one party to rule as you need a hammer for the problems of the time mostly and a saw problem arises.

The upshot is that the spread of people who vote one way and then years later in hindsight would of voted differently is always going to happen. Though does appear to be happening more and whilst in the past you had a two party system with people loyal to a party, the growth in floating voters has grown. Which is a good thing as you can not treat all problems with a hammer or a saw and sometimes you just need some duct-tape.

But with a democratic system designed for people who can just write and X for a time of communication speed akin to snails in our current times. Times of more awareness and intelligence and literacy, along with access to knowledge and speed of communications. The whole party/democratic system needs reform.

But in party that is why we end up with a more mixed second level, and in the case of the UK we have the house of Lords. Though not democratically elected they do add balance and with that common sense when a hammer is being used when a saw is needed.

But far from ideal and yet it has allowed us to move forward, albeit slowly. But then the aspect that people adjust to change at carious rates, may be a good thing, maybe not and allows a changephobia mentality to be fed.

Still one can look at the financial markets, they all bet on remain and the outfall and panic has been most clear. After all nothing actually changed overnight and won't for at least two years. People just like to presume the worst when it comes to change or stay as is in general more than not I feel, yet at the same time. Just as equally less inclined to plan for such cases with a penchant to prefer panic.

Either way much to be learned from this whole referendum and hopefully lessons globally learned. But a case of the Western world distancing itself from the people more and more and being out of touch with the rest of the World, getting more in touch with the people. Both have a way to go but certainly an something that seems apparent these days.

All reminds me of the saying "no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer" and when the people ask the questions and see how stupid the response is, they remember.

[ZenoArrow]

I agree with quite a few of your points.

In terms of lesson learned, I found a new one today... Previously I saw that a lot of the problems with the public debate stemmed from the divisive media coverage, and I still believe they played a crucial role in promoting negativity on both sides, but now I see there's a crucial capacity that is needed to develop a deeper understanding of the issues, and that is the capacity for doubt.

Without the willingness to open ourselves up to conflicting views, we rob ourselves of the power to move past demagoguery, to move past personality politics, and see issues for what they really are. Whilst I recognise that it's possible to be too flexible and stand for nothing, I'd suggest that scoring points in debates by making others look foolish may only stop when we recognise we benefit from conflicting opinions (voiced respectfully).